Have We Created a Culture of Convictions at Any Cost in San Bernardino County??

John Thompson, who spent 14 years on death row before he was exonerated–based on evidence that had been purposefully withheld by prosecutors in the office of New Orleans DA Harry Connick Sr. A Louisiana jury found the DA’s office culpable for Thompson’s ordeal (which included coming within weeks of execution before the exculpatory evidence was revealed), and awarded him $14 million in compensatory damages.
.
The state appealed the jury’s verdict all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday ruled against Thompson and stripped him of his award.
.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated: “I would uphold the jury’s verdict awarding damages to Thompson for the gross, deliberately indifferent and long-continuing violation of his fair trial right,” she said, adding that she was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
.
Ginsberg further said the actions of prosecutors under the control of Connick (the elected DA), who left office in 2003 and is the father of the famous singer of the same name, “dishonored” the obligation to turn over evidence favorable to the accused established in Brady v. Maryland nearly 50 years ago.
.
Ginsburg also wrote that “Connick’s deliberately indifferent attitude created a tinderbox in which Brady violations were nigh inevitable.” As we wrote in October, many other convictions have also been overturned, “all due to suppression of evidence,” said New Orleans Defense Attorney Nick Trenticosta. “They all try to portray it as rogue prosecutor; a fluke,” he continues, but “Harry Connick used to give awards to prosecutors for successfully convicting people.”
.
Connick, Trenticosta said, created a culture where convictions were won “at any cost.” The office’s zeal for sending people to death row was such that a New Orleans prosecutor kept on his desk a model electric chair holding photos of five condemned men–John Thompson among them. Trenticosta has called the prosectors’ actions “calculated measures to take people’s lives away.”
.
What do you think?

Postmus Pleads Guilty to 15 Counts--DA Finds Way to Muzzle Postmus?

An effective strategy to muffling Postmus relating his alleged inside information on some of the DA's office's misconduct/malicious motives is to chase off private defense counsel with aggressive litigation tactics, leave the defendant with counsel he may not have full confidence in to try the case (and even if he did, not the resources to fight a protracted battle) and force him to plead guilty to 15 counts with no sentencing on any of the charges [http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/postmus29.22d084feb.html] so if the DA does not like what Postmus testifies to, the DA recommends to the judge ringing Postmus up for a max sentence?--Isn't that rather like burying testimony you don't want to come out and buying what you do want to come out? Isn't that censoring content? Who is the gatekeeper on Postmus' memory? Isn't that also bomb-proofing yourself against the potential damage from a material witness' testimony against you? Certainly Postmus painted a target on himself over the years and made moral judgment errors, but he made a mistake. When he did what he did, he wasn't the elected DA. Heh--imagine the Colonies' defense--"the County's prosecution against us was only possible after they found three convicted felons who were willing to lie again (this time against us)". Wow

PRESS RELEASE --NATIONAL CONSUMER PROTECTION WEEK HERE & ANNOUNCING A PROGRAM TO HELP LOAN MODIFICATION SCAM VICTIMS

The following press release care of Assemblymember Carter:
.
A public awareness campaign tied to National Consumer Protection Week this month is helping homeowners protect themselves against loan modification scams, find trusted help and report illegal activity to authorities.
.
The nationwide Loan Modification Scam Alert Campaign, sponsored by a coalition of national government agencies, nonprofit organizations and financial institutions, reminds people who are having difficulty paying their mortgage to avoid loan modification scammers.
.
OneJustice, a nonprofit organization, takes urban law students and pro bono attorneys on the road to rural and other areas in California to volunteer at free legal clinics through the Justice Bus™ Project. On March 23, the Justice Bus Project is coming to San Bernardino to provide a free legal clinic on home loan modification scams.
.
I urge you to take advantage of this free service or let someone you know it will be available. It will be held from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the San Bernardino County Law Library, 402 North "D" Street, San Bernardino.
.
The service is by appointment only. Call Candace Chen at (415) 834-0100, extention 313. The website is www.one-justice.org. OneJustice is partnering with the University of California, Irvine School of Law, Verizon, and Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.
.
The non-profit Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino offers legal services to clients with limited financial means. Roberta Shouse, Legal Aid Society's executive director, says, "A lot of our clients are being tricked. People sell them these modifications; people pay them and never hear from them again.
.
"Before they give money to anyone, they should come into the clinic with every piece of paper on the subject and talk to an attorney."
.
Don't hesitate to get help. Call them at (909) 889-7328 and/or visit their website http://legalaidofsb.org/
.
Hope this helps.

Supreme Court Allows State Prisoners to Seek DNA Evidence Through US Civil Rights Law - News - ABA Journal

Supreme Court Allows State Prisoners to Seek DNA Evidence Through US Civil Rights Law - News - ABA Journal
Blogger Bob's comments: Good article on another way to get justice through DNA evidence. Some of the questions, apart from who picks up the costs and can give the time for such actions (assuming jailhouse lawyering is not an alternative) and whether the District Attorneys' offices across the state may have any new duties/ responsibilities under this case, (1) does defense counsel have a duty to bring the action where DNA tested was requested by the defense lawyer, but denied [and now there is an appropriate remedy], (2) does prior defense counsel, in cases when DNA testing was demanded but denied, have a fiduciary duty to notify all their clients (not unlike a probate or trust lawyer having a duty to advise clients of significant changes in the law) and (3) is the US District court system which requires electronic filing, an undue burden on the prison population that may elect to force DNA testing via the 42 USC § 1983 tool (or is that not a problem as the relief only gives State Prisoners the right to bring the action in State court?). A practical problem is whether the 42 USC § 1983 can be used to force other people's DNA testing where a close relative might be, in the "plaintiff's" view a possible perp?

Another Post to Help Homeowners Maybe Keep their Homes.....

Senator Barbara Boxer's “Resources for Struggling Homeowners” web page, part of the “Constituent Services” section of her Senate website, can be found at http://boxer.senate.gov/en/services/homes.cfm. Check it out!!